Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Conviction Using Article 142 to Preserve Matrimonial Harmony:

Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Conviction Using Article 142 to Preserve Matrimonial Harmony The appellant was convicted under Section 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 5 and 10 years, respectively. His conviction was affirmed by the Madras High Court on 13 September 2021. Thereafter, the appellant and the victim solemnized their marriage in May 2021. Pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court, the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority interacted with the victim, who confirmed that she and the appellant were living a happy married life and had been blessed with a male child less than one year old. The victim filed an affidavit expressing her desire to lead a normal, peaceful family life with the appellant, on whom she was dependent. During the hearing, the complainant's father also stated he had no objection to the proceedings being brought to an end. The appellant sought the quashing of his conviction under Article 142 of the Constitution. Issue Raised: Whether this Court should exercise its powers under Article 142 to quash a conviction for a serious offence under the POCSO Act, in light of the marriage, childbirth, and the victim’s desire to continue family life. Apex Court Held: The Court acknowledged the seriousness of offences under the POCSO Act and reaffirmed that crime is an offence against society. It noted that the marriage was lawful, the couple had a child, and the victim herself sought closure. The Court held that continuing the conviction would harm the victim, the infant child, and the family unit. In these exceptional circumstances, the Court invoked Article 142 to quash the conviction and sentence. The court imposed a condition requiring the appellant not to desert his wife or child and to maintain them. Any future breach, if reported, would have serious consequences. The appellant was discharged from his bail bonds and exempted from surrendering. The Court held that this decision should not serve as a precedent. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below